2/11/2015

Back in 2005, the FEC made a stab at regulating the Internet. There was a wide movement among bloggers to get a “media exemption” written into the law for blogs. A petition circulated demanding such a “media exemption.” I refused to sign it, for several reasons.* The main reason was that, I contended, “asking the FEC for a media exemption is nothing more than asking our masters for permission to speak.” As I said in 2005: “We shouldn’t have to do it. And I’m not going to.”

Quite simply, I intend to go on blogging like I did before. Regardless of whether the FEC promulgates rules for political speech on the Internet, I plan to express my opinions just as I did before. If I need to link to a politician’s campaign web site in order to make my point, I’m going to do so. If I decide to endorse a candidate, I will. If I think my readers should send that candidate money, I will encourage them to do so.

I’ll do this during the next congressional election, and during the next presidential election. I will engage in this core political speech whenever I feel like it. And I will not change my behavior in the slightest, regardless of any FEC regulations.

For example, if the FEC warns me that one more link to a certain politician’s web site will not be permitted, but that link is necessary for me to make my point, I am going to include that link.

If we actually reach the point where my engaging in such core political speech might subject me to arrest — something I believed unthinkable before the BCRA was upheld by our spineless Supreme Court — then I’ll make sure that television cameras are there to watch the authorities slap on the cuffs. Let the authorities prosecute someone for telling the world that someone should or should not be President.

Literally dozens of blogs took me up on what I ended up calling the “Patterico Free Speech Pledge.”

It’s 2014, and times have changed. The Web site with the online petition seeking a media exemption for bloggers now hosts a petition about e-cigarettes. And yet, government’s tendency to engage in overreaching remains the same. Noah Rothman reports that the FEC is once again trying to regulate blogging:

[O]ver at the Federal Election Commission, the regulation of political speech that takes place on the internet is back on the table.

In October, then FEC Vice Chairwoman Ann M. Ravel promised that she would renew a push to regulate online political speech following a deadlocked commission vote that would have subjected political videos and blog posts to the reporting and disclosure requirements placed on political advertisers who broadcast on television. On Wednesday, she will begin to make good on that promise.

“Some of my colleagues seem to believe that the same political message that would require disclosure if run on television should be categorically exempt from the same requirements when placed in the Internet alone,” Ravel said in an October statement. “As a matter of policy, this simply does not make sense.”

“In the past, the Commission has specifically exempted certain types of Internet communications from campaign finance regulations,” she lamented. “In doing so, the Commission turned a blind eye to the Internet’s growing force in the political arena.”

On Wednesday, the FEC will hold a public hearing on a variety of rules that are subject to amendment so that they can comport with the Supreme Court’s ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC. On that docket will be issues relating to disclosure requirements, earmarking, and a variety of other rules. But the FEC will also hear comments regarding now FEC Chairwoman Ravel’s preference that the commission revisit a 2006 rule that exempts blogs and other online political speech from regulation.

Note that this is taking place at the same time the FCC is trying to get its grubby paws on the Internet by appealing to the dopes in the population through so-called “Net Neutrality.”

FEC regulation of Internet speech literally means that the government could tell you to stop blogging or commenting in support of a presidential candidate. Your comment in support of Ted Cruz is like spending money to support Ted Cruz, goes the argument. Your comment is worth x dollars, you see, and you’re allowed only y dollars this election cycle.

They may not go that far down the road. Maybe they’ll “only” require you to fill out a disclosure form each time you comment. Why, certainly, sir, you may have your free speech. All we ask is that your criticism of Hillary Clinton’s latest lie be disclosed as a contribution to Ted Cruz. Each time you leave a comment, simply fill out Form DS 27 b-6. Don’t forget to fill out all five pages and sign under penalty of perjury on page six! Please remember that a separate 27 b stroke 6 form will be required for each comment critical of Ms. Clinton.

No. We cannot tolerate anything close to this.

It’s time to resurrect the Patterico Free Speech pledge:

If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules.

In Israel there’s an effor to say that an entire newspaper is nothing but a political contribution to Benjamin netanyahu – and it should stop publication for the duration of the election, or paid for by Likud.

(the excuse being, it is not profitable, and/or it is free, and is notoriously pro-Netanyahu. It is owned by Sheldon Adelson)

But Adelson, who declined to be interviewed for this article, has scoffed at the notion that the paper’s coverage is biased. “Everybody thinks I started the newspaper purely to benefit Bibi,” he said in a 2009 interview. “Nothing could be further from the truth. I started the newspaper to give Israel, Israelis, a fair and balanced view of the news and the views. That’s all. It is not a ‘Bibiton.’” Using similar language in 2013, he said, “What you read in our newspaper is a fair and balanced viewpoint not only about Bibi but about everyone.”

Meanwhile Netanyahu accuses its competitor, the one most on danger ffrom it, of always running “slander” against him.

I believe the FEC has a balanced 3 and 3 Democrat/Republican split and can’t change regs without a defection. Patrick, you are the lawyer, help me out on that. However I have always feared they would find a way around it and impose the regs on blogs. I also believe the FCC regulatory takeover is to give the power to that agency to yank URLs if they deem they are violating McCain-Feingold. And by the way McCain promised to introduce a bill to amend the law to include blogs. That never happened.

It is not only blogs they are after, it is any media form that challenges them. This administration took aim at Fox News in 2009. Between August and October they started a drumbeat against Fox using the terms “Fox is not a news organization” (David Axelrod), Fox News is “a wing of the Republican Party” (Anita Dunn) and President Obama in a NBC interview with Savannah Guthrie, referring to Fox News, “And if media is operating, basically, as a talk radio format, then that’s one thing. And if it’s operating as a news outlet, then that’s another.”

McCain Feingold exempts corporations from electioneering for a period prior to federal elections if they are part of the “institutional media” but denies it if a broadcast station is “owned and controlled by a political party.” That fits well with denying Fox News an exemption under McCain Feingold. However the administration’s efforts to defenestrate Fox came to an end when the Washington Press Corps backed Fox when it was excluded from an interview with a White House functionary. They said none of their members would participate if Fox was excluded.

Democrats have been hell bent on finding some legal means to overturn Citizens United. Both the FEC and the FCC are now part of it. Ditto for allowing blogs the same freedom as a man on a soapbox.

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

NOTE: the part about orders only applies to lawful orders. i have a positive duty to refuse unlawful ones.

i annoy lieberals when i point out that, if corporations aren’t “persons” under the law, then they can’t be regulated, taxed or sued, since. without that legal fiction, the law can’t be applied to them, and that, if you apply the law to them, rights have to come along with the obligations or the laws are invalid.

here’s a question: if the FEC can consider blog speech in support of a candidate to have a value of x dollars, how long would it take them to decide that blog speech against a particular candidate would have the same or a greater value? Please tell me if I am missing the point.

It’s hard to believe they’re really serious about this. Notice how quiet the left is. They can’t possibly want to be regulated and controlled any more than you do. Call me cynical but I think they’re trolling us.

crazy — what you’ve missed is that the left knows that the rules will not be applied to them. For a while, that will probably even be true. They also know that what they send around will not come around, and in that they are also wrong.

He11 yes I’m in. I may have to even start a blog! “Missives from a Tea-Tossing Liberal” or some such.

I AM! How in the hell do the feds at the FEC think that they’ll be able to police the speech of thousands of sites for “bad” speech is beyond me. Unless they get help from the NSA that is. And does anyone think that they’ll even police it fairly? If progressives were as popular on the net as Conservative and Libertarians were they’d never even think to do this. But progs only surf porn sites on the web and get their news from the dying newspapers and the fading TV networks.

#35: i’m not brave mr feets… i just know i have to die sometime, and better for something worthwhile than rotting away in a homeless shelter or under a bridge in the Obamamerica of the future they are trying to create.

besides, i was seconds away from dieing in a chopper crash on my 30th b-day, holding a bag of urine samples, so pretty much everything since then has been extra anyway.

Additionally, I promise to post words which would run contrary to any abomination which dares limit my right to seek redress for my grievances in the first minute such becomes law. Your blog would be my first choice in which to do so.

I will live on my feet, not die on my knees. I can pretty much guarantee you the last words out of my mouth, while I’m standing there in a pile of spent brass, will not meet with their approval. I may start a blog just to be in offense against them. Smell that civil disobedience, MFers.

SEARCH AMAZON USING THIS SEARCH BOX:
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.